Donald & Mickey stories

[August DeBlieck]

                                        Date:     22-Feb-1995 02:07pm EST
                                        From:     DeBlieck, August
                                                  ADEBLIEC
                                        Dept:     STUDENT
                                        Tel No:   

TO:  Remote INTERNET Address              ( _IN%DISNEY-COMICS at MINSK.DOCS.UU.SE )


Subject: Donald & Mickey stories

DAVID: I went back last night and reread some parts of the various
Jaime Diaz Studios Goofy and Mickey stories running currently in 
Donald and Mickey.  So now I can prepare an adequate response to 
your thoughtful letter to me about them.

Turns out I do agree with you on most parts.  I'll try to find some
place to disagree with you, though, just so this isn't completely
conciliatory.  ;)

First, a little background: My idea of high comedy is a movie like 
Airplane!, The Naked Gun, or Police Academy. (I also like the Marx
Brothers, but they don't completely fit the mold here.) Slapstick 
humor supplemented with background gags and puns to make you groan 
at are funny in my book.  On that account, these stories work for me.
(Upon rereading, I found that Goofy King Midas was my favorite, far 
and away.  The other two, so far, haven't lived up to it's zaniness.)

Your first point is that the characters don't seem to be completely in
character.  Quit honestly, I don't know a whole hell of a lot of what
their character is supposed to be.  I only read a couple of Disney's
ill-fated Goofy Adventures comics, and have read precious few Mickey
Mouse stories.  The predominant vision in my mind of them comes from
Disney cartoons, such as the Prince and the Pauper.  I think Mickey 
stays in _that_ character usually.  If you are looking for Mickey to  
fit the brave, fearless character mold he does in the comic book
stories (such as the current King of Medioka), you're not going to 
find that here, granted.  He more likely fits the movie-star Mickey
persona.  The cute little chuckle.  Getting in over his head.  "Gosh,
wow" kind of stuff.  Goofy comes out of character a lot.  He isn't 
Goofy enough.  He drifts in and out of it - though he _is_ sometimes
in character.  (A pathetic defense, I know.)

Your second contention is that they shouldn't be presented as serials.
I agree, but with circumstances as they are today, I don't think that
is going to change much.  Gladstone can only put out 3 comics a month.
This is really the only place for them.  Quite honestly, I don't think 
they should take up space in Donald & Mickey with Carl Barks stories.  
He's in all the rest.  Having his stories in Donald Duck or Uncle Scrooge
or WDC&S is tradition.  Putting his stories in D&M, while good for
those of us who haven't read them all yet, isn't terribly necessary.  
(But I'll save that for another debate.)  Yes, the stories are long.
They were produced to fit a certain format which doesn't exist anymore.
This is the only way left, short of Gladstone producing them in collected
volumes in the same way they do the Carl Barks series.  I think they'd be
best left for double-sized issues, as the first was.  That seemed to work
best.

Your third problem is that they don't belong in D&M.  Well, I've 
addressed that already, but I do agree with you in that I wish they'd
print more Mickey stories.  I'd like to read more so I can get a better
grip on his character - as well as be entertained in the process.
My suggestion would be to remove the CB stories, and put in some Mickey
stories in that slot, as outlined above.

As you yourself admit, the stories are enjoyable.  I have to believe 
that not all Gladstone readers are as knowledgeable as you, or even _I_. 
(albeit to a lesser extent.) If these stories are good, and people buy 
the book because they like them,
despite the fact that they don't know what they're missing, they don't 
care.  Gladstone still has to sell comics.  (I'm not saying I have any
proof of this, nor have I heard any anecdotal evidence.  It is mere
supposition on my part.)

You say that Mickey's "limited exposure is too valuable to spend on 
... stories that lack... character development."  Uhm, weren't the
characters developed already, way back when?  It's the same argument
with the Star Trek comics, as an example.  How can they do character
development, or change the status quo too much?  The characters have 
been defined - use that definition.  I don't think anyone can really
"develop" the character of Mickey or Donald or Scrooge anymore.  That's
been done.  What's left is what we have to work with.  You can use 
certain parts of the character to propel a story.  You can restate the
definition of the character.  But you can't develop him anymore.  You
can only change him.  (There's a scary thought.)  But maybe my
definition of "character development" is a bit off.  Please tell me if 
this is so.

My final concession: Yes, if 50% of the letter they receive are 
negative, mayhaps they should rethink their strategy. I'm not saying
forget the stories altogether, just rethink how they are used.  Too bad
they can't make another bi-monthly title.  Maybe a mini-series for
these? I don't know.  It's not my decision.

There you have it.  And you'll be happy to note it only took me two 
weeks to respond to your letter as opposed to the two months it took
me to get to Jorgen's and Don's.  :)  I'm getting there.

-Augie De Blieck Jr.